Slashdot Mirror


Can Wolfram Alpha Tell Which Team Will Win the Super Bowl?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Which football team will win the Super Bowl this weekend? That's a multi-million-dollar question, given the amount of cash people will bet on either the Seattle Seahawks or the Denver Broncos to win. Fortunately, Wolfram Alpha (the self-billed "computational knowledge engine") can analyze the historical statistics for both teams and throw out some potentially useful numbers. Developed by Stephen Wolfram and based his Wolfram Research's Mathematica analytical platform, Wolfram Alpha is an altogether different search engine from Bing or Google, which generally return pages of blue hyperlinks in response to queries. Instead of multiple results leading to still other Webpages, Wolfram Alpha usually returns set of definitive, numerical answers. (A lengthy rundown of the engine's capabilities is found on its 'About' page.) So how does Wolfram's engine, which features sophisticated algorithms chewing through trillions of pieces of data, break down the potentials for Sunday's game? Out of the 38 times the two teams have met on the field, the Broncos have triumphed 25 times (versus 12 wins for the Seahawks), scoring 98 total touchdowns to the Seahawks' 84. It's definitely advantage Broncos, in that sense. But the teams' percentages are fairly close with regard to total yardage, penalties, penalty yards, and other metrics, although the Seahawks have managed to nab more interceptions (47, versus the Broncos' 37). But while Wolfram Alpha can crunch all the historical data it wants, and that data can suggest one team will likely triumph over another, there's always the likelihood that something random—a freak injury, or a tweak to the player lineup—can change the course of the game in ways that nobody can anticipate. Also, given how player and coaching rosters vary from year to year, the teams taking the field can change radically between meetings." EA has correctly predicted eight of the last ten Super Bowl winners using the latest Madden game.

26 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. No by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course not. This is just as stupid as asking if you could calculate somebody's phone number.

    1. Re:No by TheloniousToady · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you're being too pessimistic. I give Wolfram Alpha a 50/50 chance of getting the winner right. That said, I give them lesser odds for predicting the coin toss.

    2. Re:No by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      Of course not. This is just as stupid as asking if you could calculate somebody's phone number.

      That's the great thing about close plays in sports: In one instant, you have tiny chaotic fluctuations like the air turbulence or a bounce on rough ground. The next instant, it becomes "destiny", and it gets analyzed and discussed by pundits for decades to come.

    3. Re:No by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Ah, but I figure you could guess right with 50% accuracy, and then if you guessed right and claim you calculated it nobody will know the difference.

      If it predicts the next 10 or so, maybe. But anything else is mostly just PR.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:No by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2

      This reminds me of a story I heard once (maybe it was from a movie, or an XKCD, can't track it down right now), in which a pair of guys meet a random girl:

      Guy 1: think of a card . . .
      Girl: okay
      Guy 1: your card is eight of hearts
      Girl: no it's 3 of diamonds
      \later
      Guy 2: Why did you think you knew her card?
      Guy 1: I didn't, but I figure I have about a 2% chance of guessing it, and if I do this to everyone I meet then when I do get it right the reaction will be worth all the times I got it wrong.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    5. Re:No by TheloniousToady · · Score: 2

      Sorry to gloat, but now that the Superbowl is over I'd like to point out that I was absolutely right about Wolfram Alpha having a 50/50 chance of predicting the winner. And not only did Wolfram Alpha fail to predict the coin toss, it also failed to predict that the coin would be tossed twice. Clearly, Wolfram needs to develop a new kind of (computer) science.

    6. Re:No by terryk29 · · Score: 2

      No, it's 55/55. This is the pro sports -cent, remember, which is 110.

  2. Well how wrong can they be? by bazmail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try asking them that question at the start of the season and I'll be impressed if they get it right.

    1. Re:Well how wrong can they be? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      Looking at stats on how a team historically plays seems kind of useless to me to predict their next game. A football team is made of individuals who may or may not have been on the team when those stats are assembled. There's also a group dynamic. So in short; about as effective as historical predictions of stock performance without regard to what the company in question is doing and the factor that all sides are gaming the system.

      The fact that a game like Football can produce clear statistics, gives an illusion that there are clear reasons for those stats. While yes, a running back or quarterback has an average yardage -- what they ate for breakfast might determine how well they do in a particular game.

      I think expert humans are still going to do a better job over expert computers in this regard.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  3. What new information does it bring? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

    This is all information that most people deeply interested in the statistics of this match up know already. Wolfram Alpha doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  4. Stupid. by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are hundreds of millions, nay billions, of dollars at stake every year gambling on the superbowl. Bookmakers in vegas spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary, and even they are not even close to 100% accurate.

    If the bookmakers in Vegas can not guarantee their predictions, neither can Wolfram Alpha.

    1. Re:Stupid. by rvw · · Score: 2

      There are hundreds of millions, nay billions, of dollars at stake every year gambling on the superbowl. Bookmakers in vegas spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary, and even they are not even close to 100% accurate.

      If the bookmakers in Vegas can not guarantee their predictions, neither can Wolfram Alpha.

      Sadly for you, you cannot guarantee that either!

    2. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, bookmakers don't compute odds. They compute (and recompute) a number that will put 50% of the betting population on each side of the line. It has nothing to do with who is going to win.

    3. Re:Stupid. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Bookmakers in vegas spend literally millions of dollars computing the odds to a much deeper degree than this foolishness in the summary, and even they are not even close to 100% accurate.

      Sigh....

      If you don't know how bookmaking works, don't comment on it. We both know that you don't know, and we also both know that you are making an uneducated guess that bookies care about a games outcome. You are wrong. Bookies do not care who wins. Bookies make money regardless of the outcome.

      The goal of a football bookie is to get equal amounts of money wagered on each of the two teams. Now stop acting like a fucking expert when you are actually an ignorant fuck.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Stupid. by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course bookmakers make money on both sides, but they also rely on odds. HEAVILY. If the odds are not set properly they stand to lose a fortune. If all it was was a 50/50 crapshoot then odds on a sportsbook would not even exist. Get a clue.

    5. Re:Stupid. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but bookmakers don't set their odds based on an analysis of the event. They set their odds based on the bets they receive. That's *why* they are guaranteed their cut regardless of who wins.

    6. Re:Stupid. by Maritz · · Score: 2

      It seems perfectly reasonable to guarantee that no-one can guarantee their prediction. It's about the only thing you can guarantee I suppose.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    7. Re:Stupid. by psymastr · · Score: 2

      No, bookmakers don't compute odds. They compute (and recompute) a number that will put 50% of the betting population on each side of the line. It has nothing to do with who is going to win.

      That bookmakers try to split the betting money 50-50 might be true when the betting is against the spread. But not all betting is against the spread. It is also possible, for example, to bet on the "moneyline", i.e. on who is going to win the match. It is easy to see then that moneyline betting pays different odds for each team in match. In such cases the bookmaker, if he wants to guarantee a profit, has to split the money in a different way, for example if a team has 90% chance to win the match, he needs to take about 90% of the betting on that team. This is rarely possible though, because most betting happens on the favorites and when the favorites win the bookmakers mostly lose money.

      You are also overlooking another component: That some bookmakers want to get the early action, and when they open the betting there is no line consensus to follow, so they have to set their own price. When this happens it means they *are* analyzing the matchup.

      But even if we ignore all the aforementioned and only look at spread betting, where the 50-50 split is mostly possible, even then, it is not true to say that the betting odds have "nothing to do with who is going to win". They have *everything* to do with who is going to win. Peer-reviewed research has shown, time and time again (look at any of the papers here) , that betting markets are extremely efficient, i.e. betting odds reflect very closely the real probability of events. This happens *exactly* because the line is, to a large extent, shaped by public betting, which means that misconceptions on part of individual gamblers are cancelled out.

      --
      Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
    8. Re:Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but bookmakers don't set their odds based on an analysis of the event. They set their odds based on the bets they receive. That's *why* they are guaranteed their cut regardless of who wins.

      I work as a risk manager in a major company in the industry, and might have some insight here.. Lots of faulty assumptions in the comments in this thread, a lot of them upvoted for no apparent reason.
      The bookmakers start out with odds which are very much based on analyses of previous events. If you do not set odds based on an analysis of an event, you stand to lose a lot of money early on.
          These odds will then get adjusted, but not as most of you think.
      They will not really get adjusted to keep an even book. Bookmakers are after all more interested in making money than to contain losses. Rather than adjust odds according to the volume that gets in on each side of a bet, we have punters graded after their skill. So if a skillful punter bets 10k on seattle it is worth more to us than if a punter who is continually losing bets 10k on denver. So we are more interested in weighing the bets that come in on reliability in terms of results, than to keep risks even.
      And apart from that we will also balance our odds not just based on our own risk on an event, but on other bookmakers, as is reflected in their odds (we trust them to profit from profits, same as we do..(we will ALSO let our odds be influenced more by other bookmakers that have a good trackrecord, than on bookmakers that do not.. so bookmakers who are able to take big bets, and at the same time are able to keep narrow margins, are more interesting to follow than bookmakers who take small bets and keep large margins, etc..)

      But long story short, no bookmaker is guaranteed to get their cut no matter who wins. Bookmakers are in it for the long haul, and want to maximise their earnings.
      If we lose money on one particular event is trivial.

  5. Developed by Stephen Wolfram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Developed by Stephen Wolfram

    Wolfram alpha wasn't developed by Stephen Wolfram any more than Windows 95 was developed by Bill Gates. They key difference is that one of them has an enormous fortune while the other one has an enormous ego.

    1. Re:Developed by Stephen Wolfram? by Nivag064 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which is which??? :-)

    2. Re:Developed by Stephen Wolfram? by w_dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ask wolfram alpha.

  6. No More Than Being Human Is by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    Do you expend CPU time on video to watch television or movies? Do you employ computers whose resources might be better spent elsewhere to post on Slashdot? Do you play video games? If so, you could be putting your efforts and computers toward predicting terrorism, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or whatever using the relevant data sets. As a matter of fact, why are you even reading this comment? You've got work to do, the world needs saving, hop to it.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us are merely human. We can fight hard, even heroically, to solve the world's problems. But we need downtime. Even God showed us it was okay to take the day off once in a while.

    1. Re:No More Than Being Human Is by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      Indeed. But crunching a few football stats is hardly something that's going to occupy such a machine for long. Plus, the thing isn't always used and wasn't built to be only used to solve the world's problems. It was built to do the calculations necessary to solve problems people care about. It's doing that.

      As for "claim to have changed the world", you've something of a point there. But I'd offer two replies. First, the most spectacular pieces of technology are often used in a popular or workaday context as a demonstration to the public. This is no different and it's pretty harmless as such things go. Second, that's just Steven Wolfram for you. Have you ever read the beginning of his book? They guy's a bit of a megalomaniac. You walk away from reading that thing with the distinct impression that he believes every advancement of science over the past decades is due to the (oft uncited) application of his ideas and every failure to advance is due to a failure to understand his ideas.

  7. Re:Seems like Slashdot has been paid to doPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    No.

    Nerval's Lobster is actually Nick Kolakowski, a content-writer who currently works for the Slashdot Business Intelligence / Slashdot Cloud / etc. sites. His title is 'senior editor' at slashdot; previous postings have been at various magazines.*

    Check his user account. You will so zero (0) comments, and many (>1) story submissions.
    Every single story submision Nerval's Lobster has made has been to a slash* story written by Nick Kolakowski.

    In other words Nerval's Lobster is a cloak for a Dice-paid slashdot content filler, used in an effort to make submissions to the slashdot spinoff sites seem like they are coming from readers.

    * From his bio: "Previously, he served as a staff editor at eWeek, where he specialized in writing about mobility and the cloud. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, McSweeney’s, Playboy, WebMD, Carrier Pigeon, The Evergreen Review, AutoWeek, and Trader Monthly. He is also the author of “How to Become an Intellectual” (Adams Media, 2012), a book of comedic nonfiction."

  8. +5 Informative! by Dripdry · · Score: 2

    The answer to the question is "No."

    The Seahawks embarrassed the living daylights out of the Broncos.

    --
    -